As the federal government’s shutdown nears the end of its third week, one has to wonder why many federal employees are required to work even when they aren’t being paid. Could you as a private employer ever require your employees to work without pay during a crisis period at your business? Of course not.

About half of the 800,000-strong federal workforce is sitting at home worrying about their finances because they are “furloughed”. At least that group is not performing any work, so being unpaid is legal, although obviously unacceptable for their financial security.

The other half, those whose jobs involve public health and safety, are required to report to work even though Congress has not appropriated any money to pay their salaries. FBI agents, air traffic controllers, TSA agents, the Coast Guard, and, ironically, Border Patrol officers, are all working without pay right now. If one of these essential employees refuses to report to work because of the lack of compensation, he/she will be considered absent without leave and faces disciplinary action.

Most federal employees are on biweekly pay, so on Friday, January 11, the bulk of that workforce will receive nothing for work performed December 23 through January 4. No money for rent, food, transportation, etc., will be available to those workers until both houses of Congress pass funding legislation and the President signs it.

A federal shutdown has never lasted more than three weeks before, so the fact that the shutdown is dragging on and there are no positive signs of an agreement right now is obviously distressing to these employees, many of whom are poorly compensated and live paycheck to paycheck.

Since the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, federal employees have been legally prohibited from striking. That law was intended to prevent public-sector workers from leveraging a work stoppage that could cripple the U.S. government or major industries in negotiations for better pay, working conditions, and benefits. But it likely did not envision a scenario where the government would require its employees to work without paying them, as is the case now.

What prevents you as a private employer from taking a play from this playbook and requiring your employees to work without pay when your business has a cash flow problem?

Is it legal for one of your employees to secretly record your conversations with that worker for the employee to use as evidence in a discrimination case? If you are a Texas employer, the answer is “yes”.

Texas is a “one-party” consent state, meaning that as long as one party to the conversation knows about the recording, the recording is legal. This can lead to your employee secretly starting the video app on his smartphone in his pocket just before he walks into your office for a disciplinary meeting. He knows the conversation is being recorded, so as the supervisor, you don’t have to be informed in a one-party consent state like Texas.

More than 30 states have the one-party consent rule, while California, Washington, Florida and a few other states require that every person being recorded give permission to the recording. These “all consent” states make it impossible for a supervisor to be secretly taped when talking to an employee. Making a recording without permission in one of those all consent states can lead to both criminal liability and exclusion of the tapes as evidence in the employee’s discrimination or other lawsuit.

In Texas, however, when an employer is taped, the recordings can be material evidence when an employee sues for discrimination. The Houston Chronicle reported in 2011 that one-third of the discrimination complainants who reached out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission office in Houston brought audio tapes from their workplace to play for the EEOC investigators.

If there is a recording with you as a supervisor using a racial slur, firing an older employee while saying that the company needs “fresh and energetic workers” or suggesting to a subordinate that he/she can expect a raise if the employee will accompany you to a hotel, you might as well get your checkbook and pen out now to facilitate the inevitable settlement.

Besides the obvious – THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK, here are some other steps you as an employer can take to protect yourself and the company from employees taping all of your interaction:

Adopt a written policy banning recording: As of June 2018, the National Labor Relations Board has newly declared that employers may prohibit employees using recording devices and cameras at work. This is a change from a 2015 NRLB opinion that such policies had a chilling effect on employees asserting their rights to document poor working conditions. In 2018, it was decided that no-photography/no-recording rules have little impact on NLRA-protected rights and could actually improve working conditions by forcing supervisors and subordinates to have open discussions and exchanges of ideas.

Ask employees if they are recording: Before you have a hard discussion with an employee, such as a disciplinary warning, ask the employee if he/she is recording the conversation. Make a written note of his response (juries don’t like liars who produce recordings when they stated they weren’t taping). You can remind the employee about the company policy prohibiting such recordings. Ask the employee to set his phone on your desk so you can assure that he isn’t recording or, even better, have him leave it at his desk before coming into your office.

Be careful about disciplinary actions for recording: If an employee does record in your workplace, don’t automatically warn or fire that employee even if it violated your policy. You need to know what the employee recorded, so ask to listen to the tapes. If the employee did record or photograph unsafe workplace conditions, sexual propositions, racial epithets, etc., then you need to do a formal investigation and apply effective remedial measures to fix the problem the employee’s recordings uncovered. Then carefully decide with your legal counsel whether disciplining the employee who violated your recording policy could lead to an unfair labor practice, retaliation or whistleblower claim.

As the employer, don’t audiotape others in the workplace without consent: While you may have video cameras in the non-private areas of your workplace for safety purposes or to monitor productivity, it becomes more complicated to make audio recordings. Wiretapping (recording the conversations of others without consent when you are not a party to the discussion) is illegal under several statutes. So, you would need permission of every employee as well as the consent of every vendor or guest who comes into your business if you were going to wholesale audiotape all the interactions in your workplace. It can be done, but it is complicated to do correctly, and the wiretapping law is easily violated. And personally, in more than 30 years of practicing employment law, I’ve only seen a handful of situations where widespread audio recording was helpful to a lawsuit defense, much less positive employee relations.

Since Election Day is Tuesday, November 6, here are some quick reminders for employers about the Texas election laws that you must follow.

Employers must give all employees a reasonable time off to vote on Tuesday, assuming the employee hasn’t taken advantage of early voting. So here’s how you apply that law:

You can ask if the employee voted early, but you cannot retaliate against an employee for his/her failure to take advantage of early voting.

You need to just accept the employee’s word about whether he/she voted early.

A “reasonable time off to vote” is considered two hours. However, since the lines are predicted to be long on Tuesday, do not discipline any employee who has to wait in line to vote and thereby takes a little longer than two hours away from work.

The time off to vote should be paid time off if it cuts across the working hours, according to a Texas Attorney General’s opinion.

What can you do to protect your company secrets when Angela, your vice-president of sales, announces she is leaving your company and going to work for your competitor? Is there a way to keep Angela from telling her new employer all about your customers’ preferences, your company’s proprietary pricing, or the new business line you are exploring?

Truthfully, the day Angela announces her resignation is way too late to adequately protect your company’s most important secrets. Your efforts to safeguard your formulas, recipes, passwords, marketing plans, customer lists or other information you would like to keep confidential should have started before Angela was even hired.

There is no time like the present to begin taking at least four concrete actions if you value your business secrets:

Physically protect your confidential information. Remember the urban myths that the secret recipe for KFC chicken or the formula for Coca-Cola were locked in a safe somewhere in company headquarters? According to Fox News, those are actual precautions taken by these companies. “The recipe [for Coca-Cola] lies in a vault in a downtown Atlanta SunTrust Bank vault and only two executives at a time have access to it.” As for KFC: “’Colonel Harlan Sanders’ Original Recipe eleven herbs and spices are inscribed in pencil on a yellowed piece of paper inside a Louisville, Kentucky safe’, says KFC spokesman Rick Maynard. ‘The safe lies inside a state-of-the-art vault that is surrounded by motion detectors, cameras and guards.’” Corporate espionage and theft of trade secrets is big business these days. These two food companies are serious about safeguarding their trade secrets. Are you as careful with yours?

Do you at least have good password procedures, firewalls and cyberthreat protection, files marked “confidential”, inventories of your laptops and other equipment, and limitations on which employees have access to the keys to your business kingdom?

Do you teach your new employees what information is confidential, how to protect it, remind employees frequently about their confidentiality obligations, and take immediate action if there is any breach in confidentiality?

Do you prevent employees from downloading company documents onto flash drives or leaving the premises with your files?

If you don’t take serious measures to protect your trade secrets, you really shouldn’t expect your current or departing employees to care either. Plus, the new Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act doesn’t even recognize information as a trade secret unless the owner can demonstrate that the business has taken reasonable measures to keep the information secret. So without active measures to protect the secrecy of your proprietary information, you are helpless in the courts when your secrets are stolen.

Two nooses hanging near a loading dock and racist graffiti on a company truck designed to be seen by the company’s African-American employees will almost certainly lead to an expensive racial harassment lawsuit against a business, but the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently sided with an employer who promptly took five comprehensive steps in response to this reprehensible conduct.

In its June 2018 opinion, the Court held that YRC, the employer, responded appropriately to these incidents at its Irving, Texas facility. The opinion gives all employers helpful guidance on how to combat harassment in the workplace. Tolliver v. YRC, Inc. (5th Cir. 2018).

It is important to note that the Court acknowledged that the racist actions were “morally unacceptable” and “reprehensible. But the plaintiffs didn’t allege that the acts were directed specifically toward them and “for the most part, learned about the acts secondhand”. So, the Fifth Circuit did not find that this conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to change the terms or conditions of employment as to these particular employees, meaning that their personal racial harassment claims weren’t strong to begin with.

But what really mattered to the Court is that the employer took prompt remedial action to protect all employees after these horrifying incidents occurred. The steps YRC followed offer guidance for all employers facing any kind of harassment situation, whether involving racial harassment, sexual harassment, ethnic harassment, etc.

If you think that only illegal aliens need to be concerned about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), then as an employer, you have not been paying attention in 2018, when ICE has clearly put businesses in the crosshairs with compliance audits and enforcement raids.

Take, for example, a raid conducted by ICE in small town Tennessee in April 2018. The Southeastern Provision meatpacking plant reportedly employed at least 104 undocumented immigrants at the time of the surprise raid. The company hired most of these without requiring the employees to complete the required I-9 forms and without making them provide documents showing their identities and authorization to work legally in the United States. To make matters more felonious, these workers were paid in cash each week and not reported on the company’s payroll tax reports.

Last month, the owner of that Southeastern Provision meatpacking plant agreed to a plea bargain in federal court on charges of tax evasion, wire fraud and employing undocumented immigrants. The owner has not been sentenced to prison yet, but he has already agreed to pay at least $1,296,183 to the IRS in restitution.

Similar worksite raids have escalated dramatically under the Trump administration and are happening all over the country. On August 28, a trailer manufacturer located near Paris, Texas, faced one of the largest immigration raids in recent history, when 159 of its approximately 500 employees were arrested by ICE. Because that Texas company, Load Trail, was fined $445,000 four years ago for hiring dozens of undocumented workers, one could reasonably expect the employer to also face jail time and restitution requirements for a pattern and practice of breaking the immigration laws.

Just when you thought you’d heard the last of Fired Felicia, you get a call from Felicia’s prospective employer, who is diligently checking Felicia’s references. What can you as an employer in Texas legally say about Felicia?

Employment lawyers like me have been telling employers for years to remain close-lipped, giving only dates of employment, job title, and last rate of pay. Safe, but almost deceptive in its reticence. We advise this taciturn approach because of our fear that you will say too much and say something defamatory.

Why do I have that fear? Because in a small city like Amarillo, or really anywhere in West Texas, we spend a lot of time on the other end of the reference spectrum. Instead of reticent, we are gleefully chatty.

Hiring managers around here will pick up the phone, ask for their friend who works at Felicia’s last employer, and find out all about Felicia’s problem pregnancy, Felicia’s attitude problem, or Felicia’s suspected but unconfirmed alcohol dependency. That’s when my head explodes as an employment lawyer who is trying to keep the company out of legal hot water.

One of the best employment law training opportunities for managers, human resources personnel and business owners of your company is happening in Amarillo on September 21, 2018.

The Texas Workforce Commission only offers its Texas Business Conference in Amarillo every few years and I recommend it to my clients as a “not to be missed” event. The cost is only $125 per person and just the written materials you will receive at the one-day conference are worth that.

The TWC’s speakers will cover the following in detail:

Wage and Hour Law (which is arguably the most violated business law in the country);

Independent Contractors;

Policies and Handbooks;

Worker’s Compensation: How to Control Costs of an On the Job Injury;

Hiring/Employment Law Update; and

Unemployment Claims and Appeals.

The great news is that the conference will help you no matter whether you are new to human resources issues or have been dealing with them forever. I’ve been practicing employment law for 30 years, yet I learn something new every time I attend this conference.

For the last several years, the National Labor Relations Board has been regulating which policies your employee handbook can and cannot include, even in your non-unionized workplace. At one point in 2015, there were dozens of handbook policies that were considered to have a chilling effect on an employee’s freedom to organize through “concerted activity”. Those policies were ruled to violate the National Labor Relations Act and as an employment lawyer, when I encountered them in a client’s employment policy manual, I either removed them or added a disclaimer stating that the policies weren’t intended to apply to acts protected by the NLRA.

Three years have passed and several court opinions have frowned on the NLRB’s formerly expansive disapproval regarding employee policies. In addition, the political leanings at the NLRB have shifted. Therefore, a distinctive change has recently occurred in the NLRB’s approach as to which employee policies an employer can enforce and which ones an employer can’t.

In a general counsel’s memo dated June 6, 2018, the NLRB instructed its staff that the following policies are okay to include in an employer’s policy manual and won’t necessarily be treated as an unfair labor practice:

Civility rules that require employees to avoid disparaging coworkers and using offensive, rude or condescending language to a coworker or customer;

Rules requiring that proprietary information and trade secrets of the employer and confidential information of customers have to be protected by employees (however, just saying everything the employee learns at work is confidential is too broad);

Rules prohibiting employees from aiding the competition, self-dealing and nepotism;

Rules against insubordination or non-cooperation that affects company operations (usually described as refusal to comply with a supervisor’s orders and/or perform work);

Rules prohibiting photography or recording in most business settings. “Employers have a legitimate and substantial interest in limiting recording and photography on their property. This interest may involve security concerns, protection of property, protection of proprietary, confidential, and customer information, avoiding legal liability, and maintaining the integrity of operations,” said the 2018 NLRB General Counsel. So, on balance, the NLRB has decided that it is okay for your policy to tell your employees “no photography, no recording”.

But that doesn’t mean that every rule in your employee handbook is acceptable. You still have to consider if your written policy is infringing on your employees’ rights to participate in protected concerted activity—the joining together of employees to discuss or protest the terms and conditions of their employment. If so, by enforcing that policy, you may be committing an unfair labor practice and you can be investigated and penalized by the NRLB.

As an employer, you have to verify the work eligibility of every employee, and that frustrating process might make you consider hiring only U.S. citizens. Please reconsider.

The form for verification, the I-9 form, is confusing and some of the documents you are presented may not look familiar to you—permanent residence cards, foreign passports, employment authorization documents, tribal documents. So, you may find completion of the required I-9 form stressful, especially since you have to swear under oath on the I-9 itself that the documents the employee presented and you examined appear to be genuine and the person is authorized to work in the U.S. to the best of your knowledge.

There are both longstanding legal and historical reasons that “Hire American” should only be treated as a slogan and not an employment policy.

The same Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) that introduced the I-9 form to American employers in 1986 also codified that employers with four or more employees are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status, which occurs when adverse employment decisions are made based upon an individual’s real or perceived citizenship in the U.S. (or lack of citizenship) or an applicant’s legal immigration status.

The IRCA antidiscrimination provisions also prohibit small employers (e.g., those with four to fourteen employees) from committing national origin discrimination against any U.S. citizen or individual with employment authorization. Employers with 15 or more workers were already prohibited from considering national origin in employment decisions by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Any employer who only hires applicants born in the United States discriminates against all other national origins.

Therefore, any employer who takes into account an applicant’s country of birth or citizenship status when making hiring decisions violates federal law. Your only interest in someone’s citizenship or immigration status should be finding out within the first three days of work whether your new employee is eligible to work in the United States, no matter where that employee is from or whether he or she is a visa-holder, born elsewhere but now a green-card holder, or a citizen, naturalized or native-born.

But it isn’t only for legal reasons that you should never discriminate against legal immigrants in your workplace. Hiring legal immigrants also strengthens our democracy.

It is important to understand the historical context of denying a legal immigrant the chance to work in America, which is supposed to be the Land of Opportunity. Our history is full of times when we excluded groups of immigrants in ways that now seems nonsensical.

For example, in the 1840’s and 1850’s, Irish immigrants fleeing a deathly famine and British oppression arrived on the East Coast in “coffin ships” (so called because almost 25% of the passengers who started the journey died during the passage). All of the lucky ones who survived to reach the United States were hungry, many were unskilled (often farmers who were initially unsuited to work in urban areas), and almost every one of them was Catholic. This was at a time when some Protestant conspiracy theorists fanned the flames of fear that the pope and his army would land in the United States, overthrow the government, establish a new Vatican in Cincinnati (of all places), and impose the Catholic canon as the law of the land.

(Forgive me if you already know all of this, but it appears to me that, 170 years later, the mistakes of our history are being forgotten and, therefore, will be inevitably repeated).

In cities like Boston, it was hard to assimilate such large numbers of immigrants and some employers decided it was easier just to exclude Irish workers from employment completely. “No Irish Need Apply” was a sign common in Boston storefronts at that time.

National origin and religious prejudice ran high across the country, and bigoted groups formed, such as the Know-Nothing party who believed that Protestantism defined American values and Irish Catholics had no place in America (regardless of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion).